Pajamas Media

75 Comments

1. Martin:

I’m a Chemistry teacher and have specifically taught a whole course on the elegance of this process, within a course on the ‘Methanol Economy’. It has the potential to save the US from fealty to nasty oil producing regimes, save families alot of money and make the US the Saudi Arabia of coal!

I did not know about this latest breakthrough. It is the answer to a prayer, and is just the most wonderful news I have heard in quite a while.

Thank you.

I hope soon the misanthropes who have reported on this through their crazy ideological climate communism will be hounded out of public life.

Apr 7, 2009 - 1:54 am 2. Terry:

Living my life as a climate change ‘denier,’ I do enjoy clean air as opposed to smog. I wish the article had made some mention of the results of burning the liquefied coal. Congress is in thrall to enviro-terrorists. Is there a case to be made for this fuel in current discussion, or will it be rejected out of hand for air quality reservations?

Apr 7, 2009 - 3:12 am 3. Class Clown:

Clearly this is a dangerous technology. Not only will it lead to climate change, but it also induces genocide, racism, and voting against progressive social agendas. We must take a stand here, people!

Apr 7, 2009 - 4:14 am 4. Bruce:

Please read “Energy Victory” and ask why the left champions a loser like hybrids instead of minor carburetor changes to switch in one model year to 100% flex fuel delivered liquid as today, to today’s pumps, and NO modifications nor drain to the grid.
Please tell me why.

Apr 7, 2009 - 4:17 am 5. Bruce:

PS: all from coal, of course, of which the USA has the world resource cornered.

Apr 7, 2009 - 4:17 am 6. Michael Smith:

Make no mistake about it. The environmentalists are not pro-environment — they are anti-man and anti-civilization. They want the majority of us dead and they want those that remain to exist in crushing poverty so miserable as to destroy any desire to live.

They are killers at heart with their sights set on all of us who wish to live and prosper.

Apr 7, 2009 - 4:24 am 7. Old Soldier:

My problem with James Hanson, Alexis Madrigal, and their kind isn’t the bad science. It’s their laziness and their totalitarian tendencies.

If Hanson was the brilliant mind he and his supports claim he is, why not put that brilliance to use designing batteries that will power a car for the roundtrip of my daily commute at a competitive price? Why not make all this alternative energy magic Obama promised a reality? Doesn’t pay as well as a cushy government job? Investors might expect results?

Instead, he wants to become out feudal technology lord – forcing bad ideas down our throats because of the imaginary problem of “Climate Change.”

Our dependency on oil from our enemies in the Middle East, Venezuela, and Russia is completely artificial. In a free market, their hold on our economy would have been greatly reduced long ago. Far more of our electric power would be produced with nuclear fuel than we currently use. Far more of our oil would be pumped from domestic sites while coal and shale also compete.

Instead we damage our economy by wasting time and money on nonsense like wind, solar, and ethanol. I’m not against any of these technologies – they can compete in the energy marketplace just like the rest.

Apr 7, 2009 - 4:59 am 8. Magic:

Never expect an environmentalist to be sane. They treat their dreams like it was given them from the burning bush. The enviro-terrorists have create more pain and suffering in the world them most of the dictators. They deem themselves right and therefore anyone that does not agree with them must be attacked and ridiculed.

Apr 7, 2009 - 5:14 am 9. Zim:

Let’s really tick’em off and bring back DDT. Won’t they be upset when all those innocent lives are saved and can live comfortably with cheaper power?

Apr 7, 2009 - 6:06 am 10. David S:

Creating any incentive to further pollute the environment with fossil fuel consumption is a short sighted and inefficient use of human and material capital.

There is no advantage to this technology unless one ignores all of the externalized costs associated with consuming coal.

Promoting and advancing dead-end “solutions” is, unfortunately, what we have come to expect from the polluting industries.

Peace.

DS

Apr 7, 2009 - 6:18 am 11. Parabellum:

“Alexis Madrigal” is a man. Not much of a man, but still…

Apr 7, 2009 - 6:19 am 12. Karen USA:

As Mises said, “Tu ne cede malis.” Do not give in to evil. The environmentalist magical thinking is simply evil. Things under Obama are going to get bad very fast. Get ready.

Apr 7, 2009 - 6:23 am 13. NukeET:

I find the mention of Utah more ironic than bizarre. Utah has very large deposits of coal and tar sands.

Apr 7, 2009 - 6:41 am 14. Old Soldier:

David,

Why are you wasting fossil fuel and emitting CO2 while running your computer? Shame on you! Shut it down!

Apr 7, 2009 - 6:50 am 15. BackwardsBoy:

Any elected official who professes a belief in the hoax that is “Global Warming” is unfit for office.

Apr 7, 2009 - 7:31 am 16. JED:

The coal burning Chinese have deposited mercury everywhere west of there. No one is pro-pollution. The hole in the ozone, thanks to junk science has been converted to global cooling, to global warming, and now to climate change. My best read on the concerns of climate change is that it is a totalatarian stealth tax.

Apr 7, 2009 - 7:31 am 17. Delia:

7. Old Soldier,

Excellent points and I LMAO at your #14. comment to David S.

Yes, David S., please prove what a wonderful environMENTAList you are and shut your computer down NOW and FOREVER.

Apr 7, 2009 - 7:34 am 18. Tom Holsinger:

My quick calcuation, based on an electricity cost of $0.06 per kilowatt hour, was that this would bring the costs of coal liquifaction down from over $10 per gallon of fuel to about $4 a gallon.

Given the world’s immense coal reserves, this is a guarantee of a cap on vehicle fuel costs of $4 a gallon for the next hundred years.

The Japanese and Koreans will be thrilled that they won’t have to breathe Chinese-generated coal particulates for what will be much shorter lives.

And the Chinese will be thrilled to have a vehicle fuel supply that the United States Navy won’t be able to blockade. I.e., the greens won’t be able to keep this technology off the market.

Apr 7, 2009 - 7:48 am 19. Professor Guvinoff:

Davis S. (10), can you further illuminate?

This process also works on a small scale: New Zealand has a domestic gasoline production from their coal, so they don’t need oil import.

The zeal of the environmentalists (I propose we call them enviro-detrimental-ists) is why politicians are so afraid of saying anything about nuclear energy, the only one at this point which is both dependable and carbon free!

Now, if their superior wisdom commands them to oppose coal conversion, someone somewhere somehow is going to notice the inconsistency. This technological breakthrough is very good news, whatever the naysayers make of it.

Apr 7, 2009 - 8:12 am 20. G Alston:

#10 — Creating any incentive to further pollute the environment with fossil fuel consumption is a short sighted and inefficient use of human and material capital.

Incorrect. You’re forgetting to calculate the end to end energy budgets. It takes a lot of energy and political capital (and resulting energy budgets of that) to harvest fuels from the middle east. Using US based coal (the US has a lot of it) could reduce the end to end energy budget by an order of magnitude.

This is a plus because a) this allows for more time to develop that which can be even more pollution free, e.g. space based power collection/transmission, and b) this keeps the energy dollars within the US thus allowing for less expensive development of safe nuclear sources.

What’s *truly* short sighted is arguing for wholesale decommissioning of polluting industries without viable alternatives at the ready (viable being that which has end to end energy budgets that are less than what’s being replaced, which e.g. wind and PV does not.)

If you don’t factor end to end energy/pollution budgets, you’re not doing anything more than vapid cheerleading.

Apr 7, 2009 - 8:59 am 21. J the Individualist:

“Le Changement Climatique! Quel desastre!”

That is THE line of the year!

Apr 7, 2009 - 9:22 am 22. Locomotive Breath:

CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.

-James Hansen

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf

He may once have been a scientist but he sure isn’t now.

Apr 7, 2009 - 9:31 am 23. Nate:

#22

Yes! And the loggers. Kill all the loggers. And the elephants. Oh, and the farmers and ranchers. Must kill the farmers and ranchers. They destroy virgin wilderness. And the fishermen and hunters go without saying.

Hang on. Wouldn’t that lead to mass starvation? In fact just the loss of DIESEL trucks would lead to mass starvation. Wouldn’t that make it the environmentalists who are engaged in crimes against humanity? And as for crimes against nature pfah. If climate change is a crime against nature we must sterilize the world because it is the nature of all life to change its environment. Metabolism, you know?

Apr 7, 2009 - 10:16 am 24. Heather Cook:

Excellent. I do have to point out that there’s a difference between C and CO2 though… not quite sure we “emit carbon” but we do emit “carbon dioxide”.

http://www.grist.org/article/the-biggest-source-of-mistakes-carbon-vs-carbon-dioxide

Apr 7, 2009 - 11:13 am 25. Kurt:

Your discussion of Madrigal’s Nazi-Apartheid-Utah passage reminded me of similar moments in Michael Pollan’s book The Omnivore’s Dilemma when he talks about the evils of modern fertilizer (again, with a link to the Nazis) and the cultivation of corn. These so-called “environmental journalists” always figure that they have to invoke the Nazis to scare people away from what otherwise might be considered a public good.

Apr 7, 2009 - 11:15 am 26. David H:

25: I just think Socialists talking about fellow Socialists, nothing to do with us people who believe in liberty and democracy.

As for this breakthrough, excellent news.

Apr 7, 2009 - 11:23 am 27. friedfish2718:

densities of
propane -> 508 kg/m3, liquid -> 93 kilomol of atomic H
butane -> 600 kg/m3, liquid -> 103 kilomol of atomic H
octane -> 703 kg/m3, liquid -> 111 kilomol of atomic H
hydrogen -> 7 kg/m3, liquid -> 7 kilomol of atomic H

gasoline is primarily octane. So the F-T process and its derivatives are essential to a safe and practical hydrogen-based economy. Compressed hydrogen gas, liquid gas have many, many problems. Hydrogen gas has a much greater deletrious effect to the ozone layer than any other gas.

Ignoring/avoiding coal/carbon is a very, very bad idea if you love the environment.

Apr 7, 2009 - 11:46 am 28. Boogey_Man:

Nazi’s used trains to move jews to death camps… ergo we must do away with all trains.

It must always be remembered that, more than anything else, the various ‘progressive’ causes are held together and motivated by their hatred for the more conservitive sections of their society.

Its why feminists ignored the the actions of Bill Clinton. Clinton made the Reps look foolish, so femists embraced him even though it ment abandoning their own core values.

Dont listen to what they say. Just remember this, if you say its good they will fight it. If you stand for it, they will stand against it. It matters not how many poor people it hurts.

Apr 7, 2009 - 12:01 pm 29. Sunglasses on a cloudy day:

This article clearly explains why Obama wants to “bankrupt” the coal industry. It serves his masters very well. The coal industry is in a position to take America off the teat of the “blood” oil from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc. They would suffer if that was to happen. If the president was a “true patriot” he would recognize this opportunity. If. Hazard to guess how much Saudi money goes to support the “greenbots” around the world? Hint: Obama’s kowtow to the Saudi king.

Apr 7, 2009 - 12:31 pm 30. Boris:

What’s the deal with the paranoia about Utah?

Apr 7, 2009 - 12:41 pm 31. Sebastian Shaw:

I want to see President Obama fly on wind &/or solar power alone since he talks about it so much. Or he could use his own maligned, bruised EGO to provide the fuel…

Otherwise, President Obama & all of the other “climate change” freaks are hypocritical socialists of the worst order.

Apr 7, 2009 - 1:03 pm 32. Esteban Cafe:

Utah and those damn Mormons AGAIN? First their anti-gay members put up their own coin to defeat CA’s prop 8, what’s next? Are they now refining coal into oil? That would be just like them–smothering the earth in a black cloud. When is someone going to suggest a Final Solution for THEM?

They have so many youth volunteering for the Armed Forces that they are clearly war mongers. I have a Mormon neighbor whose son joined the Marine Corp six years ago and is now a Navy SEAL. I asked him if this was unusual and he said, “No, a lot of SEALs are Mormon.” He was such a nice boy before he went on the bizarre mission to Taiwan. But he must have changed. Just freakin’ creepy. They’re clearly brainwashed–especially after serving 2 years in some foreign country, or the US, knocking on doors and bugging the hell out of us with their religion and other rot. You know that they are committed as they pay for this brainwashing themselves! Teaching “Love” and “Peace” but once back home they morph into killers. Burrrgh-gives me the creeps. Did you know that Mormons have more guns per capita and reload their OWN ammo more than any other religion? That should tell you something. The earth will breath much easier when their ilk is gone.

Apr 7, 2009 - 2:38 pm 33. Elizabeth M:

It always amazes me when people refuse to believe science. Climate change is happening whether you all want to believe it or not. I think before you accuse Alexis Madrigal or anyone else of ‘magical thinking’ you need to read more.

Apr 7, 2009 - 3:07 pm 34. Class Clown:

Here is what the environmentalist/luddite crowd never bothers to think about. There ARE NO alternative energy technologies on the near horizon (except for, of course, nuclear, which is “evil”, and therefore forbidden). Air and solar can’t provide enough, and hydrogen cells for cars are basically still in the theoretical stage.

In his book Collapse, Jared Diamond does a great breakdown of this. Of course, none of it matters to environmentalists, who in their modern incarnation are better described anti-capitalism and anti-technology rather than pro-environment.

Apr 7, 2009 - 3:16 pm 35. davod:

Elizabeth: No one doubts climate change is happening. The cliamte has been changing since the earth began forming.

However, it is the height of hubris to suggest that man is reponsible for the any major change.

As for CO2 emisssions, of which man’s contribution is miniscule, causing global warming – temperatures have gone down over the last ten years while CO2 emmisssion have continued to rise.

Apr 7, 2009 - 3:42 pm 36. Jimmy:

One of the best articles I’ve ever read here.

Apr 7, 2009 - 4:04 pm 37. friedfish2718:

correction on the hydrogen density:
octane -> 703 kg/m3, liquid -> 111 kilomol of atomic H
hydrogen -> 70 kg/m3, liquid -> 70 kilomol of atomic H

gasoline is primarily octane and contains more hydrogen than liquid hydrogen. pressure of 55 moles of h2 gas at 273K = 1200 atm while gasoline is easily kept at 1 atmosphere and 273K. And I am not counting the energy potential
of carbon in gasoline.

Apr 7, 2009 - 4:28 pm 38. Moogie:

#33 Elizabeth M: You’re right. The climate is changing! Why, just this morning it was 55 degrees, but by 2pm it was 68 degrees outside AND the sun was shining! Oh, and last week it RAINED. Water fell down from the sky! And this past winter it SNOWED! The water from the sky had frozen into these remarkable little flakes (and no two were alike!)! The meteorologist on TV said it rain today, but dang it, the CLIMATE CHANGED and it was sunny instead!

Darned climate change!

Apr 7, 2009 - 5:23 pm 39. Eric:

Being a mechanical engineer and absolutely annoyed with the massive ignorance on the Left regarding the true capacity of wind energy I did some research today and crunched some numbers to try to determine how much land and how many wind turbines would be required to match the output of just one nuclear power plant, the Palo Verde nuclear generating station in the desert outside Phoenix, AZ. Care to guess?

I used data available for General Electric’s largest wind turbine, a 3.2 MW peak power behemoth.

I used national wind speed data I found here: http://www.met.utah.edu/jhorel/html/wx/climate/windavg.html

GE’s turbine will only produce its rated peak power when the wind is blowing at 14 meters/sec or greater. The power output drops off sharply as wind speed declines. The national average wind speed is just over a measly 4 meters/sec so I bumped it up to 6 meters/sec because that’s a point on the output curve on GE’s website.

At 6 meters/sec the output of the 3.2 MW peak power wind turbine is just 0.4 MW.

To get 3.2 GW then requires about 8,000 3.2 MW wind turbines spread over 500 square miles.

I’d like to see some of the eco-ignorant advocates of wind as the solution do the math themselves.

Tomorrow – solar!

Apr 7, 2009 - 6:08 pm 40. JUST A NORMAL GUY:

WELL I SHUTTER TO THINK OF ALL THE OIL USED TO MAKE THE PLASTIC IN ROBERT REDFORD’S TOOPAY, AND ALL SO THINK OF ALL THE COAL THAT WAS USED TO GROW ALL THE BEN & JERRIES THAT AL GORE ATE TO GET SO FAT. AND DO’NT GET ME STARTED ON MICHEAL MORE AT THE “OLD TIME COUNTRY BUFET” LOL!

Apr 7, 2009 - 6:39 pm 41. Class Clown:

Eric,

Actually, we can’t even use wind, because the same evironmentalists who give it lip service will litigate the hell out of any attempt to actually locate it anywhere (those ugly windmills defile the beautiful natural scenery, you know).

And furthermore, you cited data from a website in Utah, making you ideologically suspect. Report to your local re-education camp!

Apr 7, 2009 - 7:47 pm 42. Jim Baker:

David S, the peace guy is back. Everyone has missed your wit, I’m sure.

Peace out,

JB

Apr 7, 2009 - 9:15 pm 43. BioNuclearGuy:

Here is an article with more details and a positive spin on the process (it reduces co2 emissions by 15% over the current process, if you’re worried about that kind of thing): Researchers propose new ft process for synfuels

Also note the following very important quote from the paper:

“Note that the second part of the new process also represents a direct way of using CO2. If H2 is produced via nuclear, wind, or solar energy, this process becomes a method for consuming CO2 and may bypass the difficulties in the direct use of H2 as a fuel.”

Of these options, high-temp nuclear reactors that can efficiently produce H2 from H2O is clearly the best way to go. However, the NRC seems intent on blocking any such possibility: “The NRC seems intent on crippling the potential for the emergence of new manufacturing models in the nuclear power business, and clearly has stated that it intends to impede the emergence of technological innovations from American-owned reactor startup businesses.” (http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html).

Apr 7, 2009 - 9:50 pm 44. Rubicon:

Eric… beautiful. I anxiously await your solar data. Answer me this please. Can solar &/or wind power provide America with all of its energy needs, based on today’s energy consumption? Somewhere I read that even if wind & solar were at their optimum, based on today’s technology, both combined would only ever be able to provide about 20% of our energy needs today. And the 20% is an optimum estimate. Now what are we to do for the rest of our needs? Or should we just kill off a few hundred million Americans to make up the difference?
If CO2 is so bad, why do plants breath it? If we are to do without, what are we to cut? Is this just a hatred of cars? Is it a hatred of humanity? What prompts this, stop everything mentality? So far, all I see in the Climate Change issue, is a serious desire by the manipulators of the issue, to gain power & wealth at the expense of everyone else. Al Gore’s carbon trading company will make him hundreds of millions once Congress makes Cap & Trade the law & uses law to force companies to do business w/ outfits like his! Al is as bad as the fossil fuel industry. No, worse. he tells us he is doing good for the sake of goodness while failing to mention his own personal financial interest. The “green industry” is simply opportunists transplanted from one industry to another!
If CTL is viable, and we know wind & solar are not to the degree we need them, why not use it until we actually develop alternatives? Plus, we could keep the profits (or most of them), IN America. Gosh, what a concept. “WE” (or American companies) keep the profits here rather than financing terrorist sponsors!
In fact, I would rather CTL than nuclear. At least we would not have the spent rods to deal with at the end of their useful life, since Yucca Mountain is not officially out!
Cap & trade is merely a plan to tax ALL of us (not just those making over $250k) & those taxes will seriously hurt our ability to maintain or grow our living conditions for all, not just the poor! Once again, Cap & Trade & these other schemes are another attempt to put government in control of our lives as though they alone know what is best for us! Look at how well they’ve done so far!!!! Yeah, right!

Apr 7, 2009 - 9:57 pm 45. Blackwater:

I’m no energy expert but this sounds like it could be extremely useful to America since we have vast amounts of coal. If we could use this coal to gas technology to get off our dependence on middle east and south american oil in an economically and environmentally sound way (not talking about BS global warming) then we should do it immediately.

Apr 8, 2009 - 2:40 am 46. George Bruce:

“30. Boris:

What’s the deal with the paranoia about Utah?”

It is simple. The leftist are very bigoted people. But, they pick their victims carefully. They only pick on groups that they perceived to be unable to defend themselves. Currently, Mormons and Christian Fundamentalists are fashionable and safe to hate. It used to be that Jews were not fashionable and safe to hate, but that has changed. It is now OK for the leftists, including Jewish leftists, to hate Jews. It used to be safe to hate Arabs, but now it is forbidden. If you want to be part of the fashionable and safe left, you need to learn who to hate and when.

Oh, and it is always safe and fashionable to hate Nazis, not because they were evil (and they were), but because it is safe to hate them. It is not like there are a bunch of Nazis running around cutting people’s heads off. Communists, on the other hand, are not fashionable and safe to hate, even though they killed more people than the Nazis. Why, your career might be damaged and you won’t get tenure if you hate Communists.

Apr 8, 2009 - 5:10 am 47. Locomotive Breath:

BioNuclearGuy -> great link.

But am I reading this right? You have to first have produced H2 to combine with the C (in the coal) to get get a hydrocarbon, i.e. liquid fuel? Where are we supposed to get the H2 from? Generating that’s pretty inefficient. Aside from the storage and transport issues (big issues they are) why not just burn the H2?

Apr 8, 2009 - 5:14 am 48. friedfish2718:

Nuclear Power Plants can produce h2 from electrolysis of water. The electrolysis is efficient if the electrodes are gold or platinum.
The inefficiency of electrolysis occurs when one is using other material such as carbon or iron as electrodes. The issue is the hydrogen overpotential (around 1 volt) with respect to said electrodes; the hydrogen overpotental
for platinum is close to 0 volt.

Currently work is done looking at colbalt oxide treated electrodes to diminish the overpotential.

Using Hydrogen gas instead gasoline is more hazardous and less economical (infrastructure needs to be built). Besides, per volume basis, gasoline has 40% more hydrogen than liquid hydrogen.

Apr 8, 2009 - 7:09 am 49. Sebastian Shaw:

When is the environmentalist crowd all going to Antarctica in their bathing suits? I would love to see that. Hypothermia is certain.

Apr 8, 2009 - 8:13 am 50. donttreadonme:

The earth millions of years ago was so warm that we had swamps and wet climates where there is now cold tundra. What happened? Well, the dinosaurs kept evolving larger and larger (hello, Allosaurus); and kept driving bigger and bigger SUVs to fit their growing families. These weren’t the most fuel efficient vehicles, as you would expect being millions-years-old technology (yep, with eight-tracks and faux-wood panels). So, the greedy lizards kept driving and driving and propagating and propagating…and the earth kept getting warmer and warmer until they basically cooked themselves. They weren’t stupid, mind you; they just didn’t have cable TV! Ignorance is bliss, right? Wrong. Now we are “driving” down the same road our cold-blooded ancestors did! When will we wake up and learn from the past.

Apr 8, 2009 - 12:08 pm 51. Mike Blackadder:

Eric @ 39: That is so unfair for you to “crunch numbers” as you call it. Where is the consensus?

I find it very confusing to be bombarded with these numbers and calculations and an overall analysis where you have deliberately excluded any factors that are not supported by reality. I think you have been made aware that some of us here are trying to believe the real science. I hope you will adjust future posts accordingly to not ridicule our beliefs.

And Nazis never used wind power either … err, well even if they did I only have one thing to say. I don’t believe it!

Apr 8, 2009 - 2:16 pm 52. Marc Malone:

#42 Jim Baker – I only half-missed DavidS’ wit….

Apr 8, 2009 - 2:47 pm 53. Martin:

Locomotive Breath @ 47

When you put a log on the fire sometimes a jet of gas will ignite from the cut end – this is called wood gas – CO and H2. The same gases are produced when you heat (not burn) coal. When all the gas is heated out of coal pure carbon remains. While this carbon is still hot spraying it with water produces water gas – again CO and H2. CO and H2 is known more technically as synthesis gas.

Combining synthesis gas in a reaction vessel with some tweaking you get gasoline.

H2 gas is relevant only if you wish to capture the CO2 produced during the whole process. Combining CO2 and H2 with a slightly different tweak produces gasoline too or any other liquid fuel you like.

Personally I wouldn’t bother with the last step – its really only there as a sop for anthropogenic climate change believers – and don’t get me started on that!

Apr 8, 2009 - 3:38 pm 54. Eric:

Rubicon – I made a mistake in my posting. GE’s largest wind turbine puts out 3.6 MW at peak power, not 3.2 MW.

Anyway – below find the outcome of my solar calculations again using Palo Verde as that standard.

According to the New American the maximum, which is far more than what is actually recoverable, amount of solar power available per acre in Albuquerque, a region of the country blessed with a lot of sunshine, is 970 kW/acre.
Palo Verde produces 3.2 GW from its three reactors that run 24/7 and only shut down for maintenance and periodic refueling. Now, to get that same 3.2 GW from a solar array operating at 100% efficiency (remember, this is a physical impossibility) the solar plant would require ~3,300 acres. This sounds like a pretty good deal but in reality the physical maximum efficiency of modern solar cells only allows a conversion rate of about 10%. The problem of maximizing power from sunlight has been known for at least 30 years, and is primarily one of physical limitations, not engineering technology. So this 3,300 acres in reality would require 33,000 acres to produce the same 3.2 GW as a nuclear power plant. That also assumes the entire 33,000 acres is covered by solar arrays, which, again is impossible. There needs to be spacing for panel movement, personnel and vehicle traffic, and support facilities. So lets conservatively say that to generate 3.2 GW during the peak sunshine hours would require 35,000 acres. Now, what about when the sun isn’t shining or the 3/4 of the year when solar incidence isn’t at its summer maximum? Then of course there’s the problem of keeping the dust from accumulating on 35,000 acres of solar panels.

Quite simply, wind and solar can NEVER be more than minor contributors to our energy portfolio and the sooner we accept this reality the sooner we can move on to real solutions.

Apr 8, 2009 - 8:37 pm 55. Eric:

Rubicon – regarding spent fuel rods. The answer is reprocessing. We used to do it until Jimmy Carter put a halt to it because of overblown fears that terrorists would get their hands on some of the spent fuel. As an ex sub sailor Carter should have known that civilian fuel rods don’t have the U-235 required to make a bomb. France reprocesses all their fuel and stores the waste that can’t be processed in a relatively small site. We can do the same thing.

Apr 8, 2009 - 8:41 pm 56. G Alston:

#44 — In fact, I would rather CTL than nuclear. At least we would not have the spent rods to deal with at the end of their useful life, since Yucca Mountain is not officially out!

Storage is an overhyped non-problem; e.g. there’s a SNAP-27 RTG device from Apollo 13’s LEM that survived impact at CISLUNAR speed and is currently living happily on the ocean floor emitting no discernable radiation. That which would be stored at Yucca Mountain is no more dangerous.

Apr 9, 2009 - 12:56 am 57. The Historian:

TEAM OBAMA LOST RELATIVE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
Fact trumps arrogance and theory every time.

http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/04/climate-change-flaw-theory-is-not-fact.html

Apr 9, 2009 - 7:27 am 58. Edward Moses:

Being a coal miner’s son here in Iowa. I suggested this idea to Fred Grandy when he sought the Republican Gubernatorial Nomination in 1986. What a difference that would have made if someone had listened closer 23 years ago. I remember buying coal oil back in the late 1930’s. We did not buy kerosene at that time.!!!!! In 1944, Germany was producing 124,000 barrel of oil a day from coal. I believe there is a book called “The Prize” that mention this item. Actually there are two processes that will convert coal to oil, not just the Fischer-Tropsch process.

Apr 9, 2009 - 11:32 am 59. Edward Moses:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/490.html

This happened in 1941. Interesting clip

Apr 9, 2009 - 11:56 am 60. myth buster:

Didn’t you know that Carter dropped out of Nuclear Power School? He was a submariner alright, but he served on diesel subs, never a nuclear sub.

Apr 9, 2009 - 6:52 pm 61. Eric:

myth buster – nope, I thought he was a ‘nuke’. I graduated in class 8701.

Apr 9, 2009 - 8:15 pm 62. David S:

@54. Eric:

Quite simply, wind and solar can NEVER be more than minor contributors to our energy portfolio and the sooner we accept this reality the sooner we can move on to real solutions.

Are you really going to pretend that solar generating has to be industrialized, centralized and massive? Here’s a calculation for you – 100 million family homes (or any other building), each with 1,000 square feet of solar roof. 100 billion square feet = 2.3 million acres. Using your calculations from above, that looks like about 210GW of solar generating capacity, on a distributed grid that would be less vulnerable to outage. Why would this not be a major contribution to our energy portfolio?

Tell me again how solar can never be more than a minor contributor…

Peace.

DS

Apr 9, 2009 - 9:03 pm 63. Mike Blackadder:

David S: #62: In principle I share your view about solar power and its potential for individuals to be self-sufficient in energy production. That’s why I prefer this model to other (perhaps more effective) solar schemes like satellite arrays in outer space, etc which would result in centralized control of this source of energy.

One limitation with solar today is that it is still too costly, and so not an option for 90% of people, whereas cheap energy from coal is a blessing for those who are less wealthy. Also, the scenario you describe where every home had a roof consisting of solar panels would have a devastating effect on the environment and resources just in the production of solar panels. If the production of a solar panel requires more carbon than what it saves in its life, then you may as well just use coal right? This is similar to the situation with ethanol fuel production whose expansion comes with the cost of clear cutting rain-forests and therefore more of a liability than an environmental asset.

Some of these practical limitations are not necessarily going to be overcome, so that is something that needs to be taken into account. We can not plow forward with schemes just because we agree with them in principle.

Apr 10, 2009 - 7:38 am 64. Rogan:

The environmental movement is irrational from it’s fundamental premises to it’s most recent policy proposals. It is, at heart, motivated by hatred of the human race and the existence of human achievement. Environmenatlists are driven by the fear that somewhere someone is living in comfort and enjoying their lives thanks to science and technology.

There have always been people like this. They used to be religious fanatics and urged people to flagellate themselves, wear hair shirts and drink diry water. Environmentalists are simply one of the newer incarnations of self-hatred projected outward.

Apr 10, 2009 - 8:12 am 65. Mike Blackadder:

Rogan, it does appear to be that way. Look at the situation that David S raises, and also look at ethanol fuel. In both of these hypothetical situations where we would replace fossil fuel energy sources with renewable ones we are not even reducing resource/environmental impact we are simply paying huge environmental cost immediately rather than spreading it out over time. If it is possible for people to cause irreparable damage to the planet, obviously these types of schemes would be the quickest way to get there.

For someone actually concerned about the environment, these types of initiatives would be off the table due to environmental impact alone, at least until technological advancement makes these initiatives more attractive. But as David S suggests, why should that stop us, when we’ve already decided that everything else is a ‘dead-end’ solution to our energy needs.

Apr 10, 2009 - 8:56 am 66. geoffgo:

Elizabeth@33

What always amazes me is that folks like you always suggest that the rest of us are stupid, unlearned and unthinking vis a vis “climate change.” How about we disagree on the merits and politicization of the science involved?

Most here would agree that the climate may be changing. We know that’s what the climate does and always has, since it formed. Mankind has little, if anything, to do with the changes. The last 5 major volcanic eruptions put thousands of times more of everything into the atmosphere, than all of mankind – since 1945. And they continue to do so, as that’s what volcanos do.

So if you decide it’s warming, you should be proseltyzing for more nuclear power and dikes, dams and levies. And, for not rebuilding NO,LA there. And for a bigger Navy and merchant fleet, and other more useful pro-life outcomes.

However if you decide it’s cooling, you should plan on moving southward, as the last iceage (about 13,000 years ago) put a 5 mile thick glacier over Chicago. Then an extinction event occurred which killed off everybody and most everything (including the mammoths) living in No. America, and filled the Great Lakes from the remnants of that glacier. Some propose this may have been the causation of the tale of Noah’s flood, as the resulting rise in sea levels caused them to spill over into the Mediterrean, which at the time was a valley.

And of course in a real cold spell, those agrarian-based renewable alternatives would be of no use at all, it being winter year round. Wind power might still produce sporadically; but solar (PV) would be proven to have been a complete waste of money, it being darker most days.

Note also: if the Sun acts in an unpredicted fashion over the next few decades, Earth could go “hot” or “cold” fast, no matter what mankind has been doing in the meantime.

Apr 10, 2009 - 11:08 am 67. David S:

@63. Mike Blackadder:

One limitation with solar today is that it is still too costly, and so not an option for 90% of people, whereas cheap energy from coal is a blessing for those who are less wealthy.

There are many ways to collect solar energy. Aside from PV, solar can be used to heat water, and passive solar can be used to heat and cool buildings. Solar is only costly in comparison to fossil fuel sources where many costs are externalized – and even in comparison to coal, solar is starting to become competitive. Coal fired power is not really a blessing for anyone.

Also, the scenario you describe where every home had a roof consisting of solar panels would have a devastating effect on the environment and resources just in the production of solar panels.

Certainly not so devastating as the effect of conventional fossil fuel power, or the long-term waste problem from nuclear fuel.

If the production of a solar panel requires more carbon than what it saves in its life, then you may as well just use coal right?

That’s a big if. In reality, solar energy is a huge improvement over the carbon impact of fossil fuel energy.

@64. Rogan:

The environmental movement is irrational from it’s fundamental premises to it’s most recent policy proposals. It is, at heart, motivated by hatred of the human race and the existence of human achievement. Environmenatlists are driven by the fear that somewhere someone is living in comfort and enjoying their lives thanks to science and technology.

You have a very warped understanding of environmentalism. Many environmentalists are driven by the knowledge that people everywhere are living in discomfort and suffering. A love for the human race, and for human achievement, drives activists to seek solutions that prevent humans from destroying the ecosystem. Technology has caused many problems – but it also has the potential to solve them, and more.

@65. Mike Blackadder:

If it is possible for people to cause irreparable damage to the planet, obviously these types of schemes would be the quickest way to get there.

That’s just unsupportable hyperbole. Continuing to burn growing amounts of fossil fuels is a much faster way to damage the planet than replacing our energy sources with renewables.

For someone actually concerned about the environment, these types of initiatives would be off the table due to environmental impact alone, at least until technological advancement makes these initiatives more attractive. But as David S suggests, why should that stop us, when we’ve already decided that everything else is a ‘dead-end’ solution to our energy needs.

Technological advancement has already made solar energy more attractive than fossil fuel. Your assessment of environmental impact is inconsistent with the evidence.

Peace.

DS

Apr 10, 2009 - 11:11 am 68. geoffgo:

Eric@39

Great and gusty work on wind power. Sporatically renewable energy.

As to your followup on solar, my physicist friends in the industry tell me they have not yet reached a point where the PV collectors can ever recover just the energy necessary to produce them. IE, we don’t see solar furnaces used to produce solar cells and panels.

I look forward to your assessment.

Apr 10, 2009 - 11:17 am 69. Mike Blackadder:

David S: “Continuing to burn growing amounts of fossil fuels is a much faster way to damage the planet than replacing our energy sources with renewables.”

No David, you actually just don’t get it. The inputs required to convert crops into fuel mean that there is an environmental cost associated with producing this fuel. There is some debate about whether or not there is any net benefit from ethanol in terms of greenhouse gas emissions when compared with petroleum. If we also must cut down rain-forests to make room for bio-fuel crops then the whole prospect is much more costly (in terms of environmental impact). In the case of a corn crop I believe it takes 200 years to pay back the damage of deforestation (both in releasing stored carbon in the forest and lost carbon sequestration over the life of the crop). So in other words, it doesn’t get paid back and we cause immediate damage of higher magnitude than normal fossil fuel use.

The Backlash Against biofuels

Apr 10, 2009 - 1:46 pm 70. David S:

@69. Mike Blackadder:

You are the only one here obsessed with ethanol. I know it’s not the best solution – that’s why I don’t focus on it. What’s your excuse?

PV solar cells, by the way, repay their manufacturing energy costs within about 6 years, and they last for about 30.

Peace.

DS

Apr 10, 2009 - 4:07 pm 71. Mike Blackadder:

David S: “You are the only one here obsessed with ethanol.”
Come on, I have to be able to contribute something to the discussion. It’s either that or share my views about the benefits of jerking off in the shower. But I also find it hard to believe I’m the only one who cares about the rain-forest anymore. Whatever happened to that whole environmental movement? I think by definition progressives have a very short attention span. And maybe you’d be right to point out that conservative ideas are too old and boring with our ’stay the course’ bull-crap and our ‘founding fathers’ bla bla bla. So I won’t bother you about the rain forests anymore, cause I know it’s boring. So the obvious answer to your question is that my excuse for being ‘obsessed’ with ethanol is that I’m just a deranged conservative who hasn’t moved on.

“PV solar cells, by the way, repay their manufacturing energy costs within about 6 years, and they last for about 30.”

Well David that is definitely an improvement presumably for high-end cells not being produced in China. Believe me, I won’t be bitter and gnashing my teeth if someday we could all be significantly sustained through solar power, especially if it is an option that gives us personal ownership of our own energy production.

But wait a minute… the day may already be upon us. The cost would only be about $80,000 per household. So for 100M homes in the US that comes out to about $8 trillion. These days that kind of coin is no big deal. Let’s just get Obama to put that on the old bar tab. Honestly, it makes a lot more sense than paying it out to failed financial institutions.

By the way, every time I see a picture of solar panels they look pristine. Are they somehow repellent to bird crap? But that’s an easy fix anyway, we can just repeal those gun restrictions and we’ll all be enjoying stewed seagull while soaking up all that free electricity.

Nice talking to you David. Happy Easter!

Apr 10, 2009 - 6:51 pm 72. David S:

@71. Mike Blackadder:

… I also find it hard to believe I’m the only one who cares about the rain-forest anymore. Whatever happened to that whole environmental movement? I think by definition progressives have a very short attention span.

It’s not that I don’t care about the rain-forest – it’s that ethanol has never been the best answer to carbon emission reduction. Repeatedly bringing it up is a distraction from better solutions. Solar is one of these solutions.

The cost would only be about $80,000 per household. So for 100M homes in the US that comes out to about $8 trillion. These days that kind of coin is no big deal. Let’s just get Obama to put that on the old bar tab. Honestly, it makes a lot more sense than paying it out to failed financial institutions.

Yes, at current retail rates the cost would be large (although your estimate is perhaps 8 times the current cost), but given the efficiencies of scale, a large roll-out would likely cost less. Perhaps $1 trillion, which would be recouped in a short time from power generation. You are correct that it probably would be a better investment than the unfortunate bailouts. Also a much better investment than drilling for more oil, or importing our fuel from overseas, or turning coal into gas. Free and clean power is the future.

Peace.

DS

Apr 11, 2009 - 6:49 am 73. Rogan:

@67. David S:

“You have a very warped understanding of environmentalism. Many environmentalists are driven by the knowledge that people everywhere are living in discomfort and suffering. A love for the human race, and for human achievement, drives activists to seek solutions that prevent humans from destroying the ecosystem. Technology has caused many problems – but it also has the potential to solve them, and more.”

On the contrary, it is anyone who believes that environmentalists have the best interest of mankind at heart who have a “warped view” of environmentalism.

Any real danger to the environment can be dealt with rationally through technological advances and laws relating to air and property rights.

You claim that “people everywhere are living in discomfort and suffering”. I have no idea what you mean by that, because I look around the world and see that only people who have the misfortune to live without Capitalism suffer from deprivation. Environmentalists consistently propose total government control of industry and the choices of private individuals in order to “protect the planet” – so it should be very obvious that human happiness is not their goal since only freedom brings both prosperity and good stewardship of the environment.

The policies of Environmentalism have, in fact, increased human suffering around the world. One example: the banning of the use of cheap, effective pesticides like DDT has doomed unknown legions of Africans to slow, tortuous death by Malaria. I guess that the deaths of these humans is just the price we have to pay, right?

Environmentalists use nice-sounding platitudes to mask their goals, but their political proposals always reveal the truth. The idea of “saving the planet”is only a means of duping the average person into unwittingly supporting the real agenda which is the destruction of Capitalism and individual freedom.

Apr 13, 2009 - 4:47 am 74. NOCAPNTRADE:

This is the energy of the future and the next Microsoft stock, because global warming as a result of an atmospheric increase in CO2 is fraud. I am going to look to any company that has a patent or exclusive right to use the technology and once all the global warming, enviromental, socialist weenies are exposed for the fascist’s they are and global warming is exposed as the biggest hoax of all time this product will be in every gas station and big cars will make a comeback.

Apr 16, 2009 - 9:03 am 75. Spurwing Plover:

Dont ever expect a wacko tree hugger to show any signs of sanity becuase too many of them have been so convinted that the earth will end in 10 years they must lay awake at night wordering if the tesee fly has a right to live

Apr 18, 2009 - 6:49 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: